Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday April 16, 2010 @03:34AM
from the you-paid-for-what-we-say-you-paid-for dept.

Stoobalou writes "Sony says that it has no intention of reimbursing retailers if they offer users partial refunds for fat PS3s. Last week, the first PS3 user successfully secured a partial refund from Amazon UK as compensation for the removal of the ability to run Linux on the console. The user quoted European law in order to persuade the online retailer that the goods he had bought in good faith were no longer fit for his purposes because of the enforcement of firmware update 3.21, which meant that users who chose to keep the Other OS functionality would lose the ability to play the latest games or connect to the PlayStation Network."

Usually I'd be out here saying let Sony do what they want with their own platform, but this is really kind of a dick move. They don't lose anything keeping the extra functionality, and they lose a ton of goodwill by blocking out some of their most ardent supporters.

You're making a geek distinction that has no place in the world of law. Sony sold a device with certain features, one of those features no longer works following interference by the manufacturer. That's breach of contract.

All it would require is a concerted combined effort by EU PS3 owners getting refunds for the retailers (who have to legally make the refund) to sue Sony, and force the Linux option back into the EU fat PS3 firmware.

Yes, I think that's the interesting point here. Instead of pissing off a tiny minority of users, Sony is now pissing off all of its (European) distributors (all of whom will either have customers who care about other OSs or who will worry that they might). Those retailers can make life more uncomfortable for Sony than a few disgruntled users.

All it would require is a concerted combined effort by EU PS3 owners getting refunds for the retailers (who have to legally make the refund) to sue Sony, and force the Linux option back into the EU fat PS3 firmware.

Consumer Protection Laws FTW.

Just for anyone interested (I was), the law cited is:

The owner cited European law Directive 1999/44/EC — which states that goods must (1) comply with the description given by the seller and possess the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods, and (2) be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase. How many other European PS3 owners will follow suit?

I'll be asking for a refund from GameStop as I also were required to remove the portion to be able to buy new games.

The important phrase in that disclaimer is "TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY APPLICABLE LAW".

Many countries expressly do not give the customer the luxury of being able to throw their rights away like that. The retailer might just as well say "TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMISSIBLE BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE SUN WILL NOT RISE TOMORROW".

Except that the suit would likely not be intended to force Sony to re-enable Linux. Rather the suit (filed by the retailers) would be to shift the financial responsibility back to Sony for all the refunds the retailers have to issue.

The end result being, as always, the customers get shafted and the lawyers win.

In this case, the functionality was already there, and the update that removed Other OS was a required update if you wanted to continue using any Internet features on the device.

This should worry players on PSN then.

Playstation Network relies on the client PS3 to do version checking.

Why is that worrying? Because my PS3, which I have NOT updated (it's at 3.15 so I could play FF XIII and God of War 3), gets on PSN just fine. What I did was set up a DNS and web server at home, made it authoritative for a parti

But that is still a breach of contract(1): the machine was sold as a machine that can run Linux *and* use the service. Now all of sudden it's either one or the other. According to several jurisdiction (France is cited in the example) Sony owes their customer some money.

Close, but not quite correct. In the UK (and the EU), an item must be sold as "fit for purpose" and it is the retailer that is obliged to ensure that is the case not the manufacturer. In terms of electronic devices, fit for purpose usually means that it must perform the functions that it was advertised as performing at the time of purchase for a minimum of 6 years. Clearly this action by Sony breaks this sales contract, but the refund must come from the retailer as it was they that the consumer entered into contract with.

However, the retailer would then claim the compensation back from the manufacturer as they are also entitled to the same "fit for purpose" guarantee. Therefore it will Amazon (in this case) that come knocking on Sony's door for a refund, not Joe Public. Sony may have a harder time brushing them off.

Please stop perpetuating lies that various entities have claimed but are utterly, completely, legally incorrect.

Under the law, if you exchange money for something without making any sort of agreement beforehand, you have, indeed, purchased that thing. If you walk into a store, pick something up off the shelf, carry it to the counter, set it down, hand money to the clerk, get a receipt, and walk out with that thing, you own it. There's plenty of case law about this.

Including a copy of software in a box.

Now, it's a copy of a copyrighted thing, so you can't make copy or do various other things forbidden by copyright law, but it is still a copy that you own. Copyright restrictions are restrictions under the law, not ones that the publisher has randomly made up. They don't get to randomly make up new ones. (The law does give the publisher to grant permissions to violate those rules if they want, but the rules themselves are legal ones.)

It's like you buy a car, and the city you live in forbids parking on a street unless you are a resident of the house you park in front of, or unless you have permission of the owner. The fact they can grant you one exception to how you are normally disallowed, by law, from using your car does not mean you have leased your car from that house! No, not even if you bought it from that homeowner.

And, on a more practical note, it's hard to see how anyone could be in a contractual agreement with the publisher anyway. 99.99% of the time software owners never even interacted with the publisher...most of the time, software is purchased from a third party. So, at best, you could have a contract with them. (Which you don't.)

Did GameStop license the software and somehow got the ability to sublicense it to other people? I'd really like to see that contract. I suspect they simply made a purchase, just like any other reseller makes with a wholesaler. You can't magically jump up the chain and have a contractual relationship with the publisher when you buy from a reseller!

Now, later, you might have agreed to some EULA that (claim to) restrict what you can do with the software more than normal copyright law, but that's irrelevant to the fact you purchased that copy. An EULA can't retroactively undo a purchase from a third party. (I supposed, in theory, it could assert that you're selling it back to them in exchange for something, but I've never seen one do that.)

The idea that you 'license' software dates from ages ago, when copyright law didn't really cover software, and hence you actually did license it...and by 'you', I mean 'people running mainframes', as that was all that existed at the time. And, indeed, plenty of mainframe software is still licensed...by which , I mean, people actually sit down and sign contracts beforehand.

This 'licensing' concept does not, and has never, under any circumstances, applied to any copyrighted work that people walk into stores and purchase.

Normally, I'd do the same, but this situation is not analogous to the usual problems that/.ers have with Sony. It's more than Sony trying to sell something sub-par at par price (like the rootkits, for example), this is Sony actually reducing functionality that people paid for. This can not possibly be legal, and I'm sure there's a class-action in this somewhere. They paid for the functionality, and now Sony is removing it without consent.

The only spanner in the works here is that the PS3 owners don't need to upgrade their PS3s. All their games that they've bought so far currently work, so long as they don't "upgrade" to the latest firmware, plus they keep their other OS functionality. Sure, they can't buy new games, but they don't necessarily have the right to buy new games. However, I would argue that customers bought their PS3s, in part, for the games. In buying a PS3, there's a clear expectation that you will have the ability (given the will and the money) to buy and play some of the many forthcoming PS3 games. Sony has artificially and abruptly shortened the life of the platform for those wishing to continue using their second OS.

It is explicitly stated in the law that "Any contractual terms or agreements concluded with the seller before the lack of conformity is brought to the seller's attention which directly or indirectly waive or restrict the rights resulting from this Directive shall, as provided for by national law, not be binding on the consumer."

Nice to see the link, but I think the relevant quote here lies in Article 4 "Rights of redress".

However, because the firmware update is not distributed as a consumer good through the same chain of sellers that distributed the devices, they may as well argue that the law doesn't apply here (so no case for retailers), and they retain the right to fuck everyone else by the EULA (so no case for customers).

Article 4 only handles the situation where the retailer has been forced to cough up to the consumer, and allows them to shift the blame to its rightful place by going after Sony in this case.

To my mind (and I'm no lawyer) the way the firmware update is irrelevant. Sony are disabling the ability of the PS3 to carry out one or more of its main capabilities, and the vector by which they're doing this is largely irrelevant.

I think EULAs should be entirely enforceable, but I think companies should be legally bound to quiz you afterwards. No pass, no install.

That would rock, Microsoft windows sales would plummet , iphone app store usage would be decimated after the first update as only the most devoute turtle-neck worshippers suffer through 90 pages of legalese.

In the current form, i think EULAs should be made legally null and void, no-one reads them anyway, and most explicitly contradict common law

Normally, I'd say let them do what they want, but here the people who bought the PS3 for the Linux functionality had no idea that it would soon be taken away, so Sony made them throw away a few hundred dollars for nothing.

A lot of countries consumer protection laws provide for protection that devices should operate as advertised. Sony advertised the "Other OS" option and many purchased PS3's instead of Wii because it could run Linux. Sony pulling that feature retroactively after the purchase is worse than a bait-and-switch, which is also illegal.

Sony has always had a slightly dodgy rep, but given the popularity of the "Run Other [Linux] OS" feature, it is possible that they have rats or cockroaches [linuxtoday.com] in their larder:
"Fin

Yeah, this kind of thinking is just plain dumb. If sony chooses to lose money on every console that's their bad luck. This is why we have to deal with printer cartridges that cost more than the printers they go in and if i could organise to go back in time to assassinate the guy who came up with "Give away the razors then sell the hell out of the blades" quote, i'd probably just get them to rough him up a bit since that's just a bit extremist.

"which meant that users who chose to keep the Other OS functionality would lose the ability to play the latest games or connect to the PlayStation Network."

So, the people who chose to keep the Other OS functionality, can no longer buy any new games - so if people needed that functionality, but also play games, then Sony will make them choose:

a) buy another new console so you have one for your other OS; and one for games. This adds revenue for Sony, but causes them a loss as they subsidize the basic console (i.e. the will lose the subsidy twice on such a customer).

b) stay with one console with Other OS, but stop playing games on the PS3 - thereby ensuring the user will no longer add to Sony's revenue.

c) remove the Other OS, update and only use it for playing. Revenue stream continues for Sony (on new games) - but at the cost of goodwill to the company.

I don't see any decent outcome for Sony on either of the three options...

a) buy another new console so you have one for your other OS; and one for games. This adds revenue for Sony, but causes them a loss as they subsidize the basic console (i.e. the will lose the subsidy twice on such a customer).

Except that they probably would by not just another console but another brand of console. Wii is much more popular if games are the deciding factor. Plus, I can't see anyone buying an additional console from Sony if they got burned by Sony's microsoft-style dicking. Sony can still fix this and come out looking relatively ok by releasing a fixed version of the firmware update. I wonder what kind of pressure cause the change and how it was applied, it seems it might be similar as to what Tivo went through

So, the people who chose to keep the Other OS functionality, can no longer buy any new games - so if people needed that functionality, but also play games, then Sony will make them choose:

a) buy another new console so you have one for your other OS; and one for games.

The OtherOS will run - and run very, very well - on dirt-cheap commodity PC hardware. You will have full access to the video sub-system and at least four times the RAM even on the netbook, and, at rock-bottom, a 160-250 GB hard drive.

The Linux hack only works because Sony's Hypervisor is fundamentally broken. Newsflash: That means that the rest of the system is vulnerable, too. The hackers will continue to chip at it now. They will eventually get it working fully with Linux on 3.15 (I think they are crazy close already) and then find a way to hack a gamesave to do the same thing. From there, Sony has no hope of fixing the hack. They will have destroyed customer good will and broken laws in multiple countries for only

This really is a feeble argument. Sony removed the functionality - Geohot didn't. If you feel it's fair to pass the blame to him because of something that he may or may not have done, then by the same virtue it gets passed right back to Sony because they didn't get their security right first time.

Sony took this functionality away. It is likely that this was in violation of local law. This is their fault, and they should be made to pay appropriate compensation. It really is that simple.

Sony adds some good money to each console, hoping to recuperate in games and movies.

That's Sony's own fault for having a sucky business model. It's their own decision to sell PS3s at a loss. They didn't have to do that.

However, if Sony has presented these consoles as being able to run Linux as well as play games, and they take away that ability, then by any decent standard, Sony owes customers who bought their PS3 for that ability a refund. They're changing the advertised abilities of their product after the sale has happened. That's not right, and deserves to be illegal in any jurisdiction.

Indeed, regardless of whether Sony make a loss or not, they sold the product at a premium price because it could do X, Y, Z over and above the competition. If they then remove X after people have paid for it, they should compensate users.

Sony ADVERTISES a feature. I buy a product BECAUSE of that feature. This is a transaction.Then Sony time-bombs or removes that feature.I have had something taken away from ME, and you have the balls to suggest this cost Sony?On what planet sir do you spend most of your time?

Now, let's proceed with your outrageous suggestion that mega corporations have a right to shut down customers who are less profitable.Suggesting that "OtherOS costs Sony real money" is no less applicable than saying "Blu-Ray users cost Sony real money".. should Sony disable PS3 users who play movies but DON'T play games?Are you SERIOUS??

I use OtherOS. I have Linux on my laptop, but it's nice to demo things on the TV and not have to hook up the laptop.Actually, why the hell should I have to justify using something I already paid for?

Sony fucked up bad. They made a mistake to combine the feature and subsidizing the platform. They should have picked either-or, not both. Now they try to fix their mistake and do it with a grace of a rhino. Of course they are wrong now. Thing is they were wrong from moment zero. You have your right to be pissed, or to sue them, and they will have to suck it up and pay up for their mistakes.

No need to be indignant about it. They offered a deal that was bad to them, and now they are trying to back off from it

Sony adds some good money to each console, hoping to recuperate in games and movies.Now imagine the Army buys 2000 PS3s for making a supercomputing cluster, because they are priced competetively. Because Sony is subsidizing them. Of course they will use the "Other OS" feature to run their supercomputer stuff and they won't buy a single game for the cluster.Same about nerds who have 5-10 games and spend time running Linux on PS3.

I think the best course of action would be "You can have the feature... for $150 extra" from moment zero - consoles with "Other OS" enabled not subsidized and sold at a good profit margin.

Sony didn't seem to mind using all these non-user in their numbers when they were trying to defeat HD-DVD. They were more than happy to brag about how many bluray players were out in the market. They were happy with it when they had a heated battle to fight, but now that they've won they'd like to undo all those sales they made that were instrumental to their victory.

A lot more than 10 guys bought it to run Linux. The Linux install was the cheapest Cell development platform you could buy. A lot of university research labs bought them for exactly that reason - it was a lot cheaper than a $5000 IBM Cell blade. And, of course, when you leave a PS3 in a lab with a load of postgrads, someone is going to buy games and movies to play on it...

Sony adds some good money to each console, hoping to recuperate in games and movies

Irrelevant. They sold the console as providing features X and Y. Then, after the sale and without consent they remove feature "Y". They failed to predict the financial results of feature "Y", but that's their own fault. I can't see any way in which this is either justifiable or legal.

Plus, they're just bone-headed. Clearly there not only a hobby, but also a serious tech market for these devices. They're missing a great opportunity by not simply selling a fully unlocked version (that doesn't support

I'm not saying that car dealers are not thieving rob-dog scumbags but they will at least give you the option of a Bose sound system or include it in the price, you know, *to keep*.

Indeed. The internet and computers have managed to invent a whole new level of scumbagness.

Before that, if you were stupid, they might sell you a pig in a bag that was actually a cat (Giving rise to both the expression 'buying a pig in a poke' and 'letting the cat out of the bag'.) or a disease ridden horse they tarted up for

Yes, you've discovered the mid-cycle PC surge. Console makers foolishly release all within roughly a year of each other, then nothing. At some point *all* of the consoles are less capable than the bottom 30th percentile of PCs people are using for other stuff and there is a resurgence of games targeting the PC.

They're not even talking about the next-gen yet, although the MS platform is long overdue, and Nintendo doesn't even have an HD offering of any kind.

I stay about two years behind on PC hardware, and it seems like, 75% of the time, I'm way way ahead of consoles. And spending about 25% of the cost. (At this point, you can actually buy a laptop more powerful than a PS3 for PS3 prices. Crazy.)

Every couple of years new consoles come out that mostly match PC levels, and I, might, gasp, be temporarily behind until I upgrade in a year. As I tend to buy games a year behind anyway, whatever.

In the UK at least the consumers have no redress against Sony unless Sony sold them the console, which in most cases it didn't - Amazon (or a high street retailer) did. You'd need to sue the retailer (who then, in turn, could sue sony.)
Is this different in the states?

Naturally I'm only a deskjockey but in Australia you can get refunds if the item you bought doesn't do what was claimed. To use a car analogy: Like buying a car only to have GM come around and remove the fuel tank at some future date. GM would claim in their terms and conditions it clearly said they could alter the purchased item at any time. Somehow I don't think that would fly.

Maybe, but it depends whether the feature was actually advertised, or just happened to be there.

You are not liable if the fault resulted from incorrect advice provided to the consumer by the retailer.

This might give some hope though

You cannot impose misleading conditions into your contract with retailers to limit your responsibility for the goods you have supplied. For example, stating that the retailer must pay freight for returning faulty goods, or that faulty goods must be returned in the original packaging, is likely to mislead the retailer about their rights and your obligations.

Funny, since the Sony ROOTKIT fiasco I have felt the same way about Sony.

Ditto, I desperately wanted to own a PS3 but I didn't feel (despite the calls at the time of "they've changed, they've changed") that they were trustworthy for a number of reasons, culminating in rootkits. They obviously care nothing for their customers, and it appears from this latest news that they care nothing for their retailers or EU law, either - I wonder, do they now feel they're too big to fail?

As for the box pictures, that makes little difference. As a customer you would only have to demonstrate th

Ring the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and see what they say.
If the person on the phone does not seem to get it, you can escalate your enquiry.Make an appointment.
Have the box and any Sony Australia PR/press material that mentions "Other OS functionality" with you.
Keep on pressing as the GP noted, this is really interesting wrt Australia law and the new direction consumer protection laws should be taking.
Also remember you local member of parliament, local press, radio and other PS3 user

Except I paid good money to have the seat warmer option installed in my last, I really would not be happy if they removed that feature.

I tried to claim my refund from Amazon, but they said to go direct to Sony if I wanted that. Probably because of Sony saying they refuse to offer compensation, and it not being worth it for Amazon to damage their relationship with Sony.

I read someone here on slashdot who claimed it was done so that they could avoid certain taxes (putting the PS3 as a general computation machine) but do not quote me on that... in fact I would be happy if someone shed more light to that claim.

There used to be a differential tax rate between computers and games consoles. During the PS2 days, Sony tried to circumvent this by shipping BASIC with PS2 in Europe, claiming this made it a general purpose computer. This didn't work.

Since then the tax differential has vanished, so general computing capabilities have no bearing on PS3's tax status.

The funny thing was that even with the lower import taxes and counting out the VAT sony mostly charged 30-50% more for the consoles here than they did in the states, so they tried to ripp off the governments of their import taxes and sack them in themselves by also using a 1:1 dollar Euro calculation!Speaking of slimey behavior!

The hint of a ps2 style tax break in some part of the world. Brain wash a generation to mount and enjoy the K9 delights via their first Sony.
Game, blu ray and look up to see the creative friendly glow of Sony?.
A more open feel to the wider Linux community and positive trade mag press spin.
As MS build a Berlin Wall, Sony played the Tito card.
Long term its still 'game over' for wanting the freedom on a device you own.

Sony was OK wirh homebrew... but only when the PS3 platform was young and vulnerable. Remember how the platform launched for $600-$700 and a lot of people thought it would fail, possibly bankrupting Sony in the process?

This is how they thank us.

This was my only console purchase since the Super Nintendo. I've always been a PC gamer, going way back to 64K Atari XL computers. I know others will say it and not mean it, but if Sony does not fix this I will *never* buy any Sony product (of any kind) again. It's b

I know that there are countries in Europe that have lower VAT rates for computers, as opposed to game consoles.I suspect that by adding the Linux option to their PS3s, Sony was able to switch to the reduced VAT level, as hence bag more profits for the same retail price.

This may have been revoked/no longer valid/overturned/whatever recently and hence Sony has no further incentive to offer this feature.Could also be that being classified as a computer made the console eligible for government subsidies to buy "computers" (such as in the UK the Home Access Program - http://www.becta.org.uk/homeaccess [becta.org.uk])

Your own country's consumer law will tell you if you (as a PS3 owner) are entitled to any form of compensation for this, regardless of Sony's opinion, or the retailer's. But you can't sue Sony over it AFAIK, since you have no contract with them directly.

However, retailers do have a contract with Sony - and many countries also have some statutory laws regarding contracts between corporations. Thus there may be grounds for retailers to claim compensation, or even sue for breach.

Of course, this might be a great way to piss off a major supplier, so I'm betting most retailers won't go after Sony, and will either write off a few customer claims or do their best to deny them.

The PSP was infamous for having bad pixel problems. More so then any other device including the cheaper DS. So naturally Sony dug in and claimed that bad pixels were normal and it wouldn't repair or replace.

Dutch consumer watchdog program Kassa took up the story and voila, Holland become the only country were Sony replaced the PSP with ANY dead pixel or subpixel.

It is amazing how much consumer rights are being eroded by big companies who hope that the enough consumers just won't push the issue far enough for them to be forced to regonize the law.

OF course Sony has NO such problem prosecuting the consumer if they happen to violate the law (copyright infringement).

It seems that to big companies the law is a buffet. You take what you need and ignore the rest. And we are letting them get away with it.

And no, it ain't just Sony fanboys either. Apple lovers and MS apologists are just as bad.

Yeah, but the protections are not totally without cost. Europeans always complain about the price differential between the American and European markets, but a big reason for this differential is that its just plain more expensive to do business in Europe. So you either get more protections or cheaper products, you cannot have both.

Still cheaper than extended warranties, or having the trader rip you off.

It's absolutely great in fact. My example: I bought a mobile from Clove Technology (based in UK). I'm in the USA. Mobile's mini-usb failed in 4 months. Under USA law, it's beyond any return period, so I need to deal with manufacturer for warranty repair. Well, under UK Sale of Goods Act, I get coverage from Clove for at least 6 months for ANY problems. And, if I think the mobile is no good for failing in that amount of time, I can

I'd say they don't get NEW products, but that isn't true. They do get new products in the health industry, as they are the experimental subjects upon which our FDA eventually evaluates those products....

The retailers have more power than the suppliers in most cases. Unless the supplier is one of those things that makers or breaks a business, and that is very rare these days, the retailers are the ones who have the big stick. Reason is that a retailer sells many things. There are some things or brands they won't carry simply because of space reasons, at least in the case of physical retailers and even online retailers to an extent (warehouses are finite storage). There are always tradeoffs, and they can't carry everything. For any sufficiently large one, one item more or less won't hurt them much.

This is not true of a supplier. You live and die by your goods getting in to the hands of consumers. For that to happen for most of them, you need retail availability. You need to be in Walmart and Target, you need to be on Amazon, etc. If consumers can't find you easily, they'll pass you over. That is less true of special items like the PS3, but still the case. A parent goes to buy a game console and the PS3 simply isn't in the stores they shop at, they go and get a 360 instead.

This is precisely the reason why so many people put up with Walmart's shit. They are assholes to suppliers, but you really need to be in their store since so many people shop there. Not every supplier will (Rainbird is a big one that doesn't) but most do. Walmart is why you don't see many AO games, because they refuse to stock them.

Also, in the case of something like this, there is the simple issue of possession of money. In the business world you ship out your products, and the store pays you once they get them. There's various reasons why it works that way, and some of it is due to problems. Say the items are defective or what not. If something is broken and the consumer brings it back, the supplier doesn't get paid for that one. So, the store doesn't always (or even usually) pay you the full amount. They write off things. You then have to negotiate with them over that. There are whole departments that work on that, accounts receivable departments.

So consumer returns PS3. Store refunds money. New shipment comes in, store pays Sony, less the return unit (and other stuff). Sony says "No you have to pay," the store says "Sorry but no, the unit was returned in accordance with European law and store policy, you have to take the writeoff." At this point Sony can more or less live with it, or stop selling to the store. Not very likely to stop selling to the store, unless this was a major problem.

Sony can bluster all they like, but when it comes down to it if Amazon tells them they are taking a writeoff for a PS3, they'll damn well do it. Blacklisting Amazon would hurt their bottom line in a major way.

Note that in the EU, your contract is with (and therefore the organisation you have to sue if it all goes pear-shaped) the retailer, not the manufacturer. But now that Sony has made an official announcement, there is no way most retailers will even contemplate offering a partial refund until they receive court papers - and possibly not until it's heard and an order is handed down.

Even if ordered to by a court, a retailer isn't going to bother trying to sue Sony unless and until they have had to refund a sufficiently large number of customers as to make it worthwhile. They're certainly not going to take Sony on over a single £70 refund (which I believe is what Amazon refunded), and they probably won't until they have dealt with hundreds, if not thousands of similar refunds.

I'm not convinced there are enough people who are sufficiently bothered by it as to make that happen.

Sony would have to fight 'you' or a small class action on precedent alone.:)
They learned that from the DVD region code loopholes in consumer laws in some parts of the world.When you enter a new market with new 'upgrades' never have parts of the world out of step.

The same law that dictates whether consumers get refunds dictate whether the retailer can have their money back from Sony. In short, while Sony are refusing to be part of any good will refunds (because they've already given up on maintaining good will with their customers, apparently) they're still on the legal hook for any enforced refunds.

It's not the same law applied in the same way - it's an explicit inclusion in the B2C law. Article 4 of EU directive 1999/44/EC states:

Where the final seller is liable to the consumer because of a lack of conformity resulting from an act or omission by the producer, a previous seller in the same chain of contracts or any other intermediary, the final seller shall be entitled to pursue remedies against the person or persons liable in the contractual chain.

I bought a PS3 because it could run Linux. It was interesting for me to see what Linux could do in that machine. After some time, I became bored by it, I couldn't turn it into a decent Linux media center, many video formats didn't play properly, and I wasn't really playing much with it.
DVDs or Blu-Ray discs from other zones wouldn't work in it, and I think the device was too locked for my open sourcer taste. I felt like when I had an iPhone.
Then I get the news on the firmare update that would disable Linux compatibility, and that was the end for me. I sold that motherfucker through online auctions along with all games. So much for proprietary platforms and me.

The same law that dictates whether the customer should receive a refund from the retailer determines whether that retailer has recourse against Sony for their costs incurred. So if this ever ends up in court (and I know of at least one case where it looks likely that it will) then if a precedent is set that the consumer deserves a refund it's going to be hard for Sony to fight. They can refuse all they like to sanction it, but if national law says they have to pay up, then they have to pay up.

The same law that dictates whether the customer should receive a refund from the retailer determines whether that retailer has recourse against Sony for their costs incurred.

Not necessarily...there are laws like the UK's Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations which apply to consumers and not businesses. Besides, the update came from Sony, not the retailer...so who knows?

I don't mean that they apply in the same way; the European regulation on this (which member states such as the UK are obliged to incorporate into their own laws) explicitly says that where the consumer gets their money from the retailer, the retailer has the right to go after whoever it was further up the supply chain that was to blame for the lack of conformity - in this case Sony.

CREDIT goes to Xrobx who posted these in another thread and i wanted to make sure that everyone sees them...

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.:"In addition to playing games, watching movies, listening to music, and viewing photos, you can use the PS3 system to run the Linux operating system. By installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3 system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine (Cell/B.E.)."http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html [playstation.com]

(http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:byasL-PxEiMJ:www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html+http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari) - google's cached page of the above hyperlink from March 30th 2010 which does not say anything about FW 3.21 removing Other OS. I've saved the page in case it goes offline, copy http address into browser as link probably won't work. Or, just search google and get the cached page. - kiyyto.

Izumi Kawanishi, Sony, May 2006:"Because we have plans for having Linux on board [the PS3], we also recognize Linux programming activities... Other than game studios tied to official developer licenses, we'd like to see various individuals participate in content creation for the PS3."http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9290 [gamasutra.com]

Geoffrey Levand, August 2009,Principal Software Engineer at Sony Corporation:"Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue the support for previously sold models that have the "Install Other OS" feature and that this feature will not be disabled in future firmware releases."mailing list to PS3 customers using Linux

The ACCC [accc.gov.au] responded to my complaint regarding this latest move of Sony's and they are looking into the matter. Whether or not anything will come of it is anyone's guess, but the ACCC do have a history of standing up for the consumer and not being afraid of multinational corporations.

Specifically, they're looking into the sale of a PS3 with OtherOS support being removed after the sale. The issues raised are being considered in the context of the Trade Practices Act 1974 [austlii.edu.au].

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 70 [austlii.edu.au]Supply by description
(1) Where there is a contract for the supply (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) by a corporation in the course of a business of goods to a consumer by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description, and, if the supply is by reference to a sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.

(2) A supply of goods is not prevented from being a supply by description for the purposes of subsection (1) by reason only that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the consumer.

Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness
(1) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition by virtue only of this section:

(a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the contract is made; or

(b) if the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to reveal.

(2) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business and the consumer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the corporation or to the person by whom any antecedent negotiations are conducted any particular purpose for which the goods are being acquired, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the consumer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him or her to rely, on the skill or judgment of the corporation or of that person.

My experience is that very few electronics corporations give a rat's ass about consumer protection laws. I believe Sony also claims to sell their consoles here with a 1-year warantee, despite the fact that the legal minimum is 2 years.

I called SONY customer relations to chat with them about the dropping of linux in their latest PS3 update.
After very civily conveying my dismay at their decision to punish honest users of the PS3 by retro-actively ripping out the previously advertised, supported, and paid for "Other OS" feature I asked what they could do for me to even things up for effectively turning my non ps2 compatible fat into an oversized-overpriced slim.
Their answer: "Sir I take hundreds of calls a day and you are the first to call and complain about this particular issue."
Linux fans, PS3 owners who are linux fans... If that statement is true I'm dissappointed in you.
1-800-345-7669 (SONY)
Hours: Mon-Sat 6:00AM-8:00PM / Sun 7:00AM-6:30PM PT
If you are going to call be civil. But make it clear their action hasn't gone unnoticed and is unnacceptable.
According to a friend of mine who has also called if you want to escalate it further, you can apparently call 1-866-286-5123
Monday through Friday from 8am-5:30pm Pacific time, a.k.a. 11am-8:30pm Eastern.
They need to know just how much this bothers their customers. The impression I have so far is that it's not even a blip on their radar.

Never buy any Sony product ever again. I was sort of leaning that way anyway due to the other snafus they have been involved with.

I mean for me it just seems like s simple decision. Don't trust them, then don't buy them. They have a history of doing underhanded things in the name of profit protectionism at the cost to their clients. Why bother anymore? Besides, I am pretty sure Sony's time has come and gone anyway, the glory days are over and there are plenty of better choices out there.

I bought two generation one PS3's because they had the Cell processor and I wanted to experiment
with high performance multi-core systems.
Sony has stated that they lose money on each PS3 that doesn't get additional game revenue.
They didn't state that while they were selling the first PS3 units. It wasn't part of the EULA
that you were expected to buy their games.
I am used to buying hardware and doing what I like with it. That didn't include any intention
to reverse engineer any part of the machine, which I have not done.
I guess I cannot let either of my machines accept any further updates from Sony, because
Yellow Dog Linux is my development environment for Cell experimentation.
I wonder if there will bea class action suit down the road about this. As an aside, I will not be
buying any more Sony products, ever.

No EULA ever overrides a national law (unless the law in question has special provisions that specifically allow to override/waive it). If the EULA has provisions that are contradicting local law, local law takes priority.

That's one of fine points of labor laws in EU. The employer can give the employee a draconian contract to sign, with many nasty points that, say, raise the number of hours, reduce the number of days off, cut into the salary and so on. The employee can then just smirk, sign, and then sue if the employer tries to assert any of the points that are against labor laws.

Most of "protection laws" are written specifically in a way that makes it impossible for the protected to give up the protection, even willingly - they override any contracts that might contradict them.

As I understand it, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) is national law granting statutory rights, which overrides even outright contracts, let alone questionably-signed copyright licences attached to end-user licence agreements. That's also what they mean when they give a guarantee that says it does not affect your statutory rights.

The Sale of Goods Act (and now the Sale and Supply of Goods Act) doesn't cover licences. Licences are not goods. It'll cover PS3s, though, because PS3s obviously ARE goods...but it's not immediately obvious that the PS3 itself is defective/not durable enough, given that people applying the patch are agreeing to it and that the patch isn't coming from the person from whom they bought the PS3 (and who would be liable). I don't know nearly enough law to know whether it's legal or not, but it's a bit more comp